co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
Pages
- Home
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Tuesday, March 11, 2025
I Have Never Tried to Justify Sodomy or Gay Marriage
FACT CHECK: "Jesus Never Said Anything About Homosexuality."
David Cipriano | 7 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6MmrDESjfY
I actually thought that in not directly naming sodomy, Our Lord was following a mitzvah of the old covenant.
THEN I find:
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints:
[Ephesians 5:3]
Oops, NT, but Jesus set the example. It's sufficiently clear from other things that sodomy is a mortal sin, and from Mt 5 that even the voluntary desire of it is a mortal sin.
Other thing. Not everything that the man who coined the word "homosexual" considered as a paraphilia is ipso facto a sin.
Krafft-Ebing was just thinking of whether it could in certain cases land you in prison.
In Austria, for instance, a 14 year old girl could marry with permission of the parents, but had to wait to 21 without it. If you seduced someone's daughter and they didn't want her to marry you, you were in trouble, hence the term hebephilia was coined, to described a propensity which wouldn't automatically land anyone in either Hell or (his pov) prison, but which could in many cases, given the laws, land someone in prison.
Never ever is the Bible condemning simply an age difference, see for instance Ruth.
But neither is the Bible condoning what [Krafft-Ebing] meant by pedophilia, since that's how Jews twisted the story of Rebecca by very wild exegesis.
3:13 That we don't have a record of in the written NT canon.
3:24 It's also very possible given things that are getting more fashionable in the end times, that He actually did mention this in connection with the Days of Noah.
Eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage.
This could be code for cannibalism, vampyrism, same sex marriage from the male and from the female perspective.
Simply because eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage in the normal way would not in themselves indicate gross wickedness. God didn't simply send the Flood for worldliness and forgetfulness of Himself, and no more, Genesis 6 says everyone was thinking of evil, whether it means everyone wanted to do evil, or it means very many who didn't particularly were nevertheless forced to think of the evil that was being done to them, either way, we see lots of evil taking away freedoms and decencies. Hence the grosser interpretation of the four verbs.
4:32 Technically, you cannot justify or accuse homosexuality.
It's per se not an act. Sodomy may be the act of a homosexual, of a bisexual or even of a heterosexual who is ... trying to humilitate someone, is being humiliated, does it for money (and if he's still heterosexual, it means he hasn't done it very often).
The one thing you can definitely say is, Jesus no more condemns people for being homosexuals than for being cleptomaniacs. He does however condemn unrepented sodomy or mortally sinful thefth. (Unlike sodomy, not all thefth is mortally sinful).
You could be a very honest man while living out cleptomania, like if you were pickpocketting people who paid for courses on how to defend themselves against pickpockets and then gave back the wallets. I have more than once said, being homosexual doesn't mean you have no right to marriage. NOT being opposite sex of someone is why you don't have the right to marry that someone. James VI and I was married to Anne of Denmark, and that was not sinful, even if some things he did with men pretty obviously was. And as obviously, he could never have been married to those men. Josh Weed was one better, for long, I think four daughters were born before he cracked and took a lover, and even then it might be because he was a shrink (marriage councellor), which could imply idolatry (Romans 1).
4:49 Being gay is often enough used to mean active attempts to live out homosexuality in sinful ways, so, yes, being gay would be sinful.
In some cases (like Josh Weed or a celibate artist I know), "being gay" meant / means being homosexual, without trying to live it out. And with a combat against such desires. That on the other hand would not be sinful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment